kdy_health

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects or safety. The word 'health check' implies a read-only operation, but the description never explicitly states that it does not modify state or require special permissions. It also does not explain what 'ready' means, whether errors can occur, or if any side effects exist. The list of returned items gives some transparency but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that leads with the purpose ('health check') and immediately lists the key output items. There is no filler, and every part of the sentence carries meaning. This is an exemplary level of conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, parameterless tool, the description covers what it returns but omits usage context and return format. It does not specify whether the output is a flat object, a list, or contains nested structures, and there is no output schema to fill this gap. It also lacks guidance on when to call it. While it is adequate for a trivial health check, an agent would benefit from knowing that this is a safe preflight check and what the expected response structure looks like.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything trivially. According to the calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids describing any.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs a health check and lists the specific status items it returns (environment, base address, read-only switch, credentials, token readiness). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all about data retrieval or authentication, but the description does not explicitly name a sibling or differentiate itself. It is straightforward and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or when a health check is appropriate. Without any context, an agent cannot infer when to call this tool before others. Sibling tools like kdy_auth_fetch_token suggest this might be a preliminary check, but that is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.